scoggs

I will help you.

You nailed it. I appreciate that aspect of this site and it makes reading even the lower posted replies somehow more meaningful and relevant to me.

I hate to be silly but they really should be and probably are retreating to their homes when dusk comes around to avoid the creepers and such.

That entire Development Story is such a massive gem. Everyone interested in programming, game programming, and video game creation in general should fully dig into it:

Making Crash Bandicoot

----------

As one of the co-creators of Crash Bandicoot, I have been (slowly) writing a long series of posts on the making of everyone’s favorite orange marsupial. You can find them all below, so enjoy.

https://all-things-andy-gavin.com/video-games/making-crash/

That's one of the finest and most entertaining "post mortem's" (it didn't die, though so what's that called?) I've ever read.

There's something in it for everyone who enjoys programming, video games, or technical papers.

My favorite four takeaways from the development story are:

1) The mechanic I spoke of above where the game tries to dumb things down for less skilled players.

2) The fact that Crash Bandicoot was originally designed as the flagship game and mascot character and ultimately Sony messed up in terms of making Crash into the Sony Playstation mascot as Mario or Sonic were to the Nintendo and Sega consoles / companies respectively.

Naughty Dog aimed for that as they saw an opening for it and, I think, absolutely nailed that aspect of creating an iconic and lovable character but Sony seemed gun shy about it. I could see, with hindsight, how Naughty Dog could have developed Crash further as a character and branched out in terms of making all sorts of Crash branded games of various genres in the future instead of the few platformers that we got (although they were all well above average).

3) The fact that pit falls, unbreakable boxes, and other in-level obstacles / item boxes weren't just there by chance. The Sony Playstation could not handle too many enemies on screen so the level designers worked hard to craft levels that would ensure enemies would fall into pits or be blocked by boxes from entering into an area that would ultimately crash the game / console from having too many polygons on screen.

4) The fact that Naughty Dog was thought to have "special secret hardware codes" given to them by Sony because comparatively Crash Bandicoot was performing and looking a few levels above anything else other Sony Playstation developers were capable of creating. The team wrote all sorts of specialized tools and programs to help refactor polygons, smart load levels, and ensure that the team was able to have great looking graphics and models on screen that were as close as possible to squeezing out everything the hardware could handle (see item 3 above) and this caused other developer teams to question Naughty Dog and Sony's relationship behind the scenes.

Here's your ticket:

http://www.0to255.com/b4d355

0to255 + whichever Color Palette Website of Choice = A great starting point.

I'm not positive but I think one of the first examples of a game accommodating players in a more extreme sense was in Crash Bandicoot during the famous boulder chase level where Crash was running toward the screen / player. If the game detected you were having trouble clearing the stage each subsequent replay would slow the boulder down a bit. The goal was to ensure the player wouldn't rage quit thus allowing for longer play sessions.

If it's not the first it's at least one of the best early examples of this mechanic.

Sometimes a job calls for duct tape.

$87.00/mo or $2045.00 one time payment. That's really nice although as people said it is a little low on the top speed if you need to take it on any faster roadways / highways.

For city driving it seems absolutely perfect in terms of performance, convenience, and most importantly: price.

Looks really slick as well. I'm loving the different color options. Too bad you can only pick one stock ;P

Sorry for the long post but I felt it was related and contains personal experience in a criminal case tried by a jury that I took part in:

----------

This always comes to mind when I think of anything to do with "DNA Evidence" or "using Lab analysis or DNA sequencing" in terms of crime scene evidence as the "most important" or "most damning" portion / part of evidence brought against a defendant:

Annie Dookhan, chemist at Mass. crime lab, arrested for allegedly mishandling over 60,000 samples

----------

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/annie-dookhan-chemist-at-mass-c...

Like red light cameras, radar guns, drug dogs and anything else law enforcement and/or the government like to use to bolster their cases or work toward a more iron-clad / strong body of evidence to win their case it seems that DNA Evidence is something that was never really believable or strong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I spent over a months time on a jury for a double attempted murder and while 95% of the testimony, expert analysis, and other direct / cross-examination was compelling enough to keep me focused and tuned in the lengthy, scientific, and overall information-packed expert testimony from the DNA Lab Scientist who performed the DNA Analysis did little to keep me awake.

Throwing endless numbers, percent chance that a sample is from a specific person, the likelihood that a sample could be from anyone beside a specific person, or the methods and means by which a scientist comes about determining the likelihood of a given sample belonging to a specific person seems like something [on paper] that should NEVER have been given enough credit to stand as evidence that could be believed beyond a shadow of a doubt. I felt certain, in those moments, that even the smartest folks on the jury and in the courtroom those days experienced little more than information overload, a lack of context, and certainly a sense of "I have to believe this because I'm not informed enough to question it and the world seems fairly certain that DNA Evidence is not only acceptable but highly accurate and therefore nearly useless to question".

It all felt and still feels like a grand performance akin to a magician using misdirection or sleight-of-hand to keep their audience paying attention to the exact wrong things.

----------

Lastly, I think it's also important to note that the defendant confessed immediately upon being picked up by the police without any lawyer present and it was all recorded on video and audio. The defendant was 99.999% guilty from all directions including analogical, anecdotal, character, circumstantial, demonstrative, digital, direct, exculpatory, forensic (beyond DNA), hearsay, physical, prima facie, and most damning: physical evidence.

I imagine in another case without such strong evidence beyond forensic evidence being the cornerstone of the State's evidence that the State would have liked to keep the case away from a Jury thus seeking a plea deal. I can only assume that would be the case, but from my POV in the ordeal the only reason the State spent so much specific time on forensic evidence was due to formality, due to due diligence, and because of the mountain of other credible evidence it served to bolster all of it.

Without any other hard evidence I can't imagine many juries taking only Forensic DNA Evidence as beyond a shadow of a doubt. No matter how certain or how close to 100% a scientist or lab analyst says a DNA Sample matches a certain persons the entire point of "without a shadow of a doubt" is to prevent innocent folks from winding up behind bars for things they didn't do when the people trying to get a conviction don't have the evidence, tactics, strategy or any other means to demonstrate the Defendant's guilt.

I'd love to see a really talented and fast working artist modify their deck mid-tournament to always be best prepared for their coming opponent and the deck they are known to use. I'm sure that wouldn't go over too well.

I've agreed with everything you said not only in this comment I'm replying to but also your original top level one -- it's just that it spurred the thought in my mind to ask the questions I did and say what I said. Hope it didn't come off otherwise.

I think I'm about to say something that might be met with displeasure but I feel like it's a question I'd like to toss around anyways:

Is there really anything that bad about this message to the workforce? I feel like 95% of what was said is implied at other places and when that's the reality but it's never spoken of it would probably create an even higher level of anxiety? Maybe the more extended life of bigger and more dug in companies offer some sort of incentives or worker's rights that alleviate some of those anxieties?

I guess I feel like what's being said isn't surprising nor is it that remarkable, to me. What would be surprising or remarkable is if the message was: You don't have to work so hard, we're hiring 7% more people because we feel like it's a nice thing to do and regardless of our performance the failures of this company or the products we make will never be your (the workers) fault.

I'm sure everything I just said is stupid but, even if the message from Tesla rubs people the wrong way I somehow feel like the harsh truth might just be an OK pill to swallow compared to the, "Aren't you going at least buy me dinner before you... " type message / ethos that I see and have felt in corporate environments for decades?

Is it strange that I get some level of measurable joy out of reading something official that contains a rational and balanced take on a subject such as:

"... A balance is required between excessive sun exposure which increases the risk of skin cancer and enough sun exposure to maintain adequate vitamin D levels..." ?

I'm not used to seeing articles / stories / write-ups / or even paragraphs that seem to contain acknowledgement of both sides (or all sides, depending) of a situation. Everything seems like an advertisement or a paid / sponsored article these days so it's almost like a balanced write-up / an author projecting a rational and honest viewpoint is this rare and refreshing change-of-pace for me? Maybe it's not that weird but I've never really taken the time to consider it so I've definitely never asked any friends, family, or co-workers about it. Any thoughts?

I'm sure this won't be the case for everyone but something about being on the computer all the time, using it for official work tasks and so many personal mundane tasks seems to take away from my seriousness and memory retention when I'm trying to do creative organization outside of work time (since work stuff is by nature more structured and stratified into departments and projects it sorta helps to organize itself before I have to really put thought into it).

That's where I find using a physical notebook better.

Sometime I do is write everything out in pencil first and then I make sure to re-read it. That gives me a chance to make quick changes / fixes and then more importantly it allows me to go back with a pen when I'm done to write over / highlight headings, keywords, key snippets, and key bullet points while also being able to add things like stars next to important items, arrows to connected items, and other things that I possibly forgot to jot down or couldn't finish once I have the clarity of the entire ordeal's organization jotted down in one place.

This helps me commit things to memory much better and something about having a hand written hard copy feels like I actually did some "official work" on a side project / personal organization / preparation project.

-- "Just trying to get something to eat, honey!"

As a species, humans are hard-wired for roughhousing, so the body and mind are happy when we let it happen.

We may not, as a species, need to roughhouse as children anymore in the same way lions and tigers do since we no longer need to hunt or rely on our physical attack prowess to secure nourishment but we are definitely still hard wired to get joy and positive reinforcement from such behavior. Working with kids for any amount of time makes this all starkly clear.

Heck... Even being around drunk people enough makes it clear, haha!

Ah man. That's wild. Mind me asking how old you were when your brother was getting that treatment and you rebelled? Or at least how big of an age gap there was between you? My brother and I are very close in age so I wouldn't have been able to make that informed of a decision if the same happened to him (I'd have been too young to argue my stance in any coherent manner).

That said: I'm waiting for my neurotropics and cybernetic implants as well...

Agreed. The other side of the argument seems too trapped inside a vacuum where things are done the way they should be on paper. That's not reality at a university looking to turn a profit. The people doing the grunt work (Campus Police) might have the tools and means to solve this problem but the people signing their paychecks don't want them to do anything that could reduce profits or put their job at Campus Police in jeopardy.

I don't know if this official or publicly traded knowledge but I believe it's, "Put that toddler on Adderall / Ritalin!"

Well to me the question is:

How many too-young-to-work online gamers are there who have parents willing to pay for their subscriptions / games / in-game purchases?

We already know that these kids who don't have enough (or any of their own) money have a computer, internet access, and the ability to purchase all of the peripherals and a game needed to play. What's making companies stop and say, "We don't think the people who made these non-working kids positioned to be our customers (e.g. they have the minimum hardware needed to play their game / products) will spend any more money on them."?

Are there more kids whose parents buy them computers and allow them to play games than there are corporations / businesses?

Do all corporations / businesses and products made for corp/bus only allow for micro-transactions or are their products a monthly/yearly subscription fee (fixed rate) or is it a one time purchase?

Are we expecting future generations to stop buying computers and games for their children? Are we expecting children to stop being born or stop growing old enough to be able to use our products?

It's a demographic that's got infinite potential and every year there is a new set of customers. And, if you get on any single customer's good side they can become loyal, paying customers when they reach an age where they are no longer price-averse.

The article noted that the accused thief has no prior criminal record. That probably means little to nothing. There's no proof that he's not an amazing career criminal holding down a 9-5 in order to mask his criminal activity. There's also no proof that he's never even jaywalked prior to getting in trouble for the GPS Bait Package.

That said, whether he's a secret career criminal or truly a first time offender his defense doesn't really seem like some sort of elaborate explanation he thought of in case he got caught up by the police. It more seems like a vague excuse or a vague lie... But...

Is it really outside of Amazon's realm to have policies that the average person / worker wouldn't agree with? Is it really outside of the public's knowledge that Amazon employees have at times commented about, posted about, and protest over working conditions or pay or break time or lunch time given or scrutiny over many other seemingly menial things that the average person wouldn't expect such a massive and profitable corporation to have enacted and enforced?

This all may mean nothing. Heck, I'll admit it all means nothing, but I'd love to hear an official comment from Amazon about the policy the accused thief mentioned. I'd also love to hear from Amazon employees who would have knowledge about whether such a policy existed or not. Either from a driver or other employees higher up on the food chain like lawyers, HR, or other corporate level employees who may have had to deal with such things directly if not directly dealt with such matters.

Nah, that's just how it looks there.

I guess then the simplest way to look at the people retained is that they most likely weren't instrumental to the company's downfall and their experience / knowledge / familiarity with said company is absolutely more valuable than their participation in the company's downfall is threatening to future prospects?

It's happening for me on Chrome Version 70.0.3538.110 (Official Build) (64-bit), for what it's worth. Seems like the Edit Window / Modal / Popup has some sort of resize mechanism to it or tied to it and it repeats shrinking the width of some container on a loop but there's nothing to tell that loop when to stop / what minimum width the loop / shrinking should end at.

There would be the issue of cost when replicating the thickness of bamboo as well, I'd imagine?

Thanks, I was really baffled to see that comment.

Yes

I was, at first, assuming you may have liked those places because of the size, busyness, and grandeur of it all but then I realized you actually enjoy the release from "normal" daily tasks. You enjoy the freedom someone else setting the schedule brings. You enjoy not being able to control the speed at which any given thing takes place at. You revel in the lack of control -- which I'm not taken aback by but I'll admit it did catch me slightly by surprise -- but everyone is different so I won't go as far as saying I was floored at the prospect of someone feeling the way you do.

Now, the real reason I'm here to comment: Do you enjoy being inside casinos? They can be very daunting in terms of the amount of sounds and light indicators flashing everywhere around you at all times. I'm sure the sheer amount of people and the realization that there are more cameras there than many other significant places on the world combined doesn't exactly endear somebody to casinos, either.

That said, I was curious how somebody on the spectrum sees, thinks, and feels about such spaces since they are very unique and you can't exactly find them everywhere around the world, either.

And yet it's the conclusion every major thinker (and practicer) in our field has come to (plus there's historical evidence from tons of mis-estimated projects, regardless of scope and budget).

I agree fully and I think the main issue is this: People estimating, wanting estimates, "fueling" the workplace and ways in which businesses operate where estimates and milestones are the norms we work around...

The big thing I see missing is the fact that mostly everyone involved in these "mental work simulations" (as I'll call them) is calculating all of the tasks for completion against time it takes to complete tasks.

There have been some people commenting on, "I am glad to give an estimate so long as I'm allowed to add ample padding time for unexpected issues, scope creep, and then I'm allowed to double the entire estimate or at least add 75%. If I can get that estimate signed off on I'm fine with estimating".

And that's probably where I'd say I sit and feel most comfortable: "I'm fine with giving estimates so long as the person singing off on them realizes I'm really just giving a best case scenario guess with a bunch of worst case scenario 'what-if's' built in as well as some 'inevitable scope creep / customers deciding to change specs on the fly' type stuff." But something is still missing. There is a lot of lingo and business-speak and cross-department buzzword ad-libbing taking place but not a whole lot of ground is being broken in terms of moving things forward. Why is that?

The big thing that's missing from ALL OF THIS (IMHO)? Everyone is basing all of these estimates as if things were taking place in a vacuum. Even in that vacuum, over time, estimators, project managers, and developers have come to realize that including padding time for inevitable issues, scope and feature creep, and unforeseen circumstances is an absolute must. Even then, that's inside a vacuum of sorts.

I truly believe it's impossible to plan without falling prey to the "Estimate inside a vacuum" issue. Even if you are a driveway paver and you've paved 10,000+ 100' driveways in your illustrious 20 year career there is going to be something unforeseen that comes up that will prevent your 10,001th job from being completed under time and under budget. The problem is that there is no way for us to truly determine any and all possible issues that could arise. The bigger issue is that bosses and clients don't tend to care when money is on the table, jobs are at stake, and careers are on the line. So we create estimates and we miss them and promise to get it right next time. Even though we know we never will, vacuum or not.